In response to the White Paper. Why isn't Idealism included in the features of modernism?

General
1

Definition of the features of modernism from the WP:

Empiricism: the belief that sensory experience is the only trustworthy basis
for confirming knowledge about the external world. The foundation of
experimental scientific method, its chief exponents in the 17th and 18th
centuries were John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

Scientific Materialism: the related view that nothing exists except physical
matter, subject to particular laws of physics (as opposed to e.g. divine nature).

Reductionism(/atomism): the view that in this purely physical world, all
phenomena can be properly explained as the sum interaction of simpler
phenomena, and that the smallest parts are the fundamental units of reality.

Mechanistic view: as innovation in mechanics spread (and arguably since
the clock was invented) a root metaphor of nature-as-machine supplanted
metaphors like nature-as-nurturing-parent in the public imaginary. A
corresponding view of creator god as the ‘divine clockmaker’ allowed religious
belief to co-exist with the mechanistic view.

Newtonian mechanics: (functional but partial) early mathematical laws of
physics explaining motion of material objects

Darwinian evolution: the idea that species change over time, give rise to
new species through natural selection, and share a common ancestor.

Objective truth: the view that in our absolute, physical world, there is truth
about the way things are, independent of human perception. An objective,
constant, external universe

If we are talking about a period of time then something very large is missing from this list. That thing is idealism. Clearly the group of people who assembled this list did not think idealism belonged on it.

From my perspective, it absolutely belongs on it, and its absence reveals bias. I think materialism and idealism, as understood in a modernist Western perspective (not eastern philosophy) are both part of the dualistic system we need to get rid of. Each of them is one half of Descartes’ dualism with the other crudely chopped off. Rejecting one of them while failing to even mention the other (so you don’t reject it, but you don’t explain why it hasn’t been rejected either) will be noticed by “the other side” (ie analytical philosophers, skeptics, rationalists, naturalists).

There is a very simple way to move beyond this problem. It’s called neutral monism. The people trying to build the bridge from other side have already proposed neutral monism as the only sensible way forwards, precisely because it offers a genuinely new and neutral start. Why not meet them half way and build the foundations of a new movement together?

I think the “correct” position for 2R to take is that reality is not made of matter, nor mind, nor both. All of that is a hangover from modernism. I think we need to view reality as being made of information or structures (and the relationships between structures). We do need a sort of dualism, but it needs to be a Yin/Yang sort of dualism not a mind/matter dualism. That will need a lot of unpacking, but I believe the underlying physics and philosophy is available.

1 Like
2

While you’re technically right if you take modernism as extending back to the scientific revolution, and including philosophers like Berkeley and Hegel, wouldn’t you agree that in the twentieth century idealism has been an extremely minority view - at least once you get past some neo-Hegelians in the early decades? I think that would be the main reason for focusing on materialism as opposed to idealism in the white paper. Materialism has also seeped through to popular culture and mainstream understandings in a way that idealism has not.

1 Like
3

While you’re technically right if you take modernism as extending back to the scientific revolution, and including philosophers like Berkeley and Hegel, wouldn’t you agree that in the twentieth century idealism has been an extremely minority view - at least once you get past some neo-Hegelians in the early decades?

I tried to find publishers for my forthcoming book. One of them was interested, and they sent it to a test reader for feedback. That test reader was Bernardo Kastrup. His feedback was this:

“The main thrust of this book is very important and desperately needed. It is just a real shame that the author doesn’t understand enough about metaphysics. REJECT!”

It was rejected because it wasn’t committing to objective idealism as “the answer”.

So no, I don’t think idealism is just a problem for the past. I think it is coming back, and while it is not as much of a problem as materialism, it is still wrong, and still needs to be rejected. What this really comes down to is whether or not we should believe in disembodied minds, which has major implications for the question of life after death. There is a whole movement of people out there who think that if materialism is false, they can look forward to a continuation of their individual existence after death. I really do not want to get into a battle with those people, because I don’t see this as a major issue. However, I am aware that some other people do see it as a major issue.

4

Vanessa Machado de Olivera’s book Hospicing Modernity came up in an another thread, but it seemed useful to repost her House of Modernity model here. (The image on the blog is from the book)

1 Like
5

This rejection encapsulates my disdain for established intellectualism and philosophical practice.

You have to demonstrate your ‘understanding’ of metaphysics by referencing the range of theories that are out there. Only then are you deemed sufficiently knowledgable to be permitted to produce philosophy.

In the end, it comes down to the reviewer deciding the worthiness of your work by the measure of their own, knowledge-based understanding and their particular, unconscious bias, and the unquestioned assumption that no-one else could possible understand more then they do.

Never does it occur that the true might neither be consistent with the range of theories in their possession, nor that they might be qualified to discern it.

The whole endeavour is a trap, a knowledge industry that lacks the tools to self-critically examine its foundations or progress understanding beyond long established positions. It is a game whose rules are broken and it is this game that must be disrupted before any progress can be made.

This is why I’m taking my work to a trade publisher.

1 Like
6

I basically say all of this on the second page of the introduction.

In the discourse surrounding collapse and the future of human civilisation, Jem Bendell stands out as one of the most prominent and controversial voices. His 2018 paper Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy challenged conventional thinking on sustainability and resilience. Bendell’s core argument is that we must move beyond the illusion that current global systems can be sustained through incremental reforms. Instead, he contends that we are already in a state of inevitable collapse due to ecological overshoot, primarily driven by climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. Bendell’s notion of Deep Adaptation offers a radical shift in thinking. It asks us to prepare for societal breakdown and to rethink our relationship with nature, each other, and ourselves, in a world where the basic tenets of industrial civilisation may no longer hold.

Bendell’s message did not find an easy path. When Deep Adaptation was first submitted for peer review, it was rejected by academic journals for being too pessimistic and unhelpfully alarmist. This institutional resistance to his work highlights the limitations of academia in confronting existential risks. Like many voices that call for urgent and fundamental change, Bendell found that the dominant paradigms within academic and policy circles were more invested in sustaining the status quo than in acknowledging the profound transformations required. His paper was eventually self-published, and quickly gained traction outside academic gatekeepers, becoming a touchstone for grassroots movements concerned with climate collapse. The attempts to suppress Bendell’s work bear striking similarities to the broader pattern of resistance to challenging dominant worldviews—whether in academia, politics, or media. His story illustrates the precarious position of radical thinkers who poke at the comfortable narratives of progress and control, and reflects the reality that institutions built on the old order – those of economic growth, material consumption and technological optimism – are incapable of hosting the conversations necessary for the transformation required. At the heart of this struggle is a recognition that the future we imagine must be liberated from the intellectual and cultural forces that resist it. Jem Bendell’s experience, like others before him, demonstrates that the path forward will not be carved out through conventional means.

7

Is that the introduction to your book? Would you mind if I read the abstract and introduction?

8

PM me your email address and I’ll send you a PDF of the first 35 pages.